Reply to 13 and Trex

wisefool83 SG

I'm still not comfortable with hijacking another person's thread, so I'm reply here.

What are the countries you are using for comparison (those that are less stable)? Israel? Iraq? Iran? Afghanistan? North Korea? Is the demographics (population composition) the same? If our MM, SM and PM are so capable, they should go over Indonesia and help transform them into first world economies with third world civil liberties

I am comparing in general to the entire world. Yes the demographics are different but are there 2 states in the world with identical demographics? I mean at this point in time, you are not disputing that Singapore is a stable country right? Base on conscience, if you grew up in Singapore, did you perceive yourself to be in a safe place?

When you make such comparison, you are also stating that the poor and untalented of Singapore are not able to migrate too. Isn't it the same as the other countries. Most mainland Chinese are able to migrate because of cash? Are you sure? Do you have any statistics to prove it? I have some mainland Chinese friends, the majority of them are working class FTs who has a basic degree from China. I know of hawkers who are PRs in Singapore too. If everybody in Singapore has the ability to migrate, then I will give the ruling party credit, else it's just the same as the any other third world country.

Yes, it's the same with regards to the fact that poor and untalented people are often unable to migrate to better places unless claiming refugee status. But Singapore has a higher percentage of people that are eligible for migration. But I got this tru deduction rather than factual statistic, which of course mean I could be wrong, but I could also be right, and perhaps you want to correct me tru means of either deduction or statistics. (The deduction was: take for eg. the point system form of migration, the hosting country requires new migrants to reach a certain point to gain PR status. And every certain amount of cash you bring in will earn you some point and the higher your education or other professional qualification will also earn you more points. Singapore has higher percentage of people who received tertiary education (recognised internationally ones) and we are also richer (based on GDP per capita) which therefores allows more of us to have higher points and thus better means of migration.)

Hypothetically, if I take over the government tomorrow and declare my pay to be $1 billion a year. In your words, being paid with a high salary is not corrupt because it's legal. Hell! I run the government and the judiciary, anything I say goes, if it's not legal, I can make it legal through parliament. The principles of legality depends on who is in government. When Thaksin was PM of Thailand, everything he did was legal, when he was ousted, he is corrupted. Care to explain the concept of legality in such a case?

Yes, you are right. Legally speaking, if you are the sole dictator of the country and you overthrew all form of constitution, which basically means you make and judge your own laws, everything you do would be legal, though not necessarily moral. Corruption is against the law, greed is against moral. Hence the election process to allow people to change a govt that really pisses everybody off. The fact that PAP had not been defeated may not necessarily means that there's no way to defeat them via election means, it just mean they haven't pissed enough people off.

Interestingly, how do you know for sure that Thaksin is corrupted? Did he tell you? Did any Judge make a ruling? Innocent until proven guilt is the rule of law and until he is convicted, it is not correct to say he is corrupt. And if I'm not wrong, his charges were tax evasion, which is a crime nevertheless, but is not the same as corruption.

Some robbers are a result of circumstances, no work, no money to survive. But what about robbers that are paid millions? What do you call that? Greed? Greed is not a result of circumstances.

Robbers that are paid millions? Hmmm.... if they are paid, then they didn't rob, if they didn't rob, they are not robbers.... Greed is not a result of circumstance, but how much is too much? What is the amount the people can take before being called greed? If desire for material items such as money is called greed (tan), is desire for non-tangible things such as fame not greed too? If over desire for all tangible and non-tangible items are greed, then is insatisfiable desire for freedom a form of greed as well?

Minimum amount? When you are displease with your family members in your house, can you voice your displeasure, if you are a big family can you gather all your family members to voice your displeasure at your parents? Singapore is your home, can you voice your displeasure in a group?

I believe that you are doing so already.

Irresponsible journalism? That is for you to prove

do not assume that your point of view is always right, everybody has their own views on issue. What might be right to you might not be right for others. A cliche would be "One Man's Meat is Another Man's Poison". This would prove that your views are limited to only your own, only your view is correct, others are wrong.[/quote]

Some example of irresponsible journalism. The case of Lani Guinier where she was demonised, misquoted and mis-interpretated by most media to such extent where her nomination by Clinton to be the Assistant Attorney General was withdrawn without a public hearing. Her popularity was so damaged by irresponsible journalism that she could never explained herself clearly. She had to try to clear her own name by publishing a book "The Tyranny of the Majority", but by then it was too late and she never took public office.

During the Katrina incident, various media reports describe New Orleans to be an "all hell-loose" city. Rapes, plunder and such incidents were reported to be happening all the time and everywhere; public servants such as the police and military were heavily criticised for their inability. But it was later found out that most of the reports were exagerations and little or no apologies were offered to the wrongly accused civil servants.

Other examples includes news that we often get from those "Fruits daily" around our regions.

Does this apply to you too?

wisefool83 SG

I like this one, so one day if I was in charge of things, I will pass a law to take all the money wisefool83 has ever earned through his own hard work as well as to take all the credits for the things he has ever achieved.

By his logic I am not greedy or dirty because all this was by the book and law.

As I answer 13 earlier, yes, it is legal, but immoral. So it means, you are greedy and prob plays a dirty hand, but legally speaking, it's not illegal. A proper legal system would therefore prevent this from happening. Why PAP ministers are able to give themselves great payrise but not get into serious trouble yet is because of the amount that they take.

Consider this, a pay of 2 million per annum per minister is going to cost a Singaporean less than 50cent per year. Even if we have a hundred of such minister, it's going to be $50 per annum, which amounts to about $4 per month. Wide spread corruption across the serivices however, as we are observing on the Traffic polices and custom officers in our neighbours however, are more costly on the individuals who run into them. In media, one very very angry voice is louder than thousands of not so very angry voice.

At the same time, highly paid ministers do not deter business investments, as investors do not foot the bill directly and since all taxes are transparent, the costs of investment are foreseeable. Which is more than I can say for lower level corruptions. Businesses are important to the average people as they are the ones, not the govt, who would be directly money to the masses. (hmmm.... I've digress, but hey, if you can take all my hard earn money in your own world, I guess it's only fair I say all I want in my own thread)

Rock^Star SG

It is not a matter of how much it costs. Rather, it's the:

1) Timing (so close to GST increase)
2) Govt has not outlined any concrete plan on how they intend to allocate the money into Workfare.
3) They would rather bridge their income gap to match the rich rather than think of how to bridge the average Singaporean's income gap.
4) There are many policies that have serious flaws. For eg, HDB prices eating into retirement funds, CPF problems etc etc. Yet, they declared their own pay raise.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

I find your point laughable, for the very reason it attempts to be very pragmatic without going the whole way.

So what you are saying in other words is that our government has no choice but to be corrupt if they are being paid any less then they are currently?

I seriously doubt that. We didn't pay our ministers peanuts before the pay rise, and the whole justification of controlling corruption is flawed to begin with- it is an excuse, not a real reason.

The bottom line is, if we can tolerate such legal immorality in our top ranks of government, which is supposed to consist of our "most upstanding" examples anyway, then there is no saying what else that will be tolerated in the name of "legality".

What this means is that instead of relying on the proper ways of curbing corruption, and that is to raise our people and soceity with proper moral values and character, we have opted to think that the alternative is acceptable, and that is to assume that morals are irrelevant and simply legalize and control corruption by making some forms of it legal.

There is something seriously wrong with this approach.

No soceity can be built on pragmatism alone, and if we take such a pragmatic approach towards corruption within our government, then there is no reason for the common Singaporean to bother with any idealism when it comes to anything else with Singapore.

Why serve NS when you are paid crumbs and face a 2-year disadvantage when you finally get out? Why defend a nation that exists soley on pragmatic values? Why put your life on the line for something that regards your rights as a sentient being as expendable in the interest of national survival?

The more we try to run our nation like a company, the less it becomes like a nation to its people.

The truth is, we can still be transparent and FAR cheaper to our own citizens and investors. The bogeyman of corruption is being used to jack up legal costs higher and higher when the real threat here is really GREED.

And frankly could you bother to think of a good point before you post?

maurizio13 SG

Anybody would know that no two things are alike, even identical twins are different. I am not talking about "identical demographics", I am saying that if the majority composition of the population. It will have an effect on stability and growth.

Singapore has a higher percentage of citizens that are eligible for migration? Do you have facts and figures to substantiate that claim? Singapore has an adult literacy rate of around 95% while Australia has an adult literacy rate of 99%. With thouse kind of rates what makes you think that that we have more eligible migrants? Unless you are comparing ourselves to North Korea & Ethiopia, then maybe you are right. I suppose all the other qualifications obtained by Australians are not recognised internationally.

Aren't you contradicting yourself here, you said that "a dictator judges his own law, everything is legal" and there you go saying "corruption is against the law".

The media is a powerful tool, you can use it to affect the way citizens think and other incentives such as giving out money before election.

Well, I am using Thaksin to explain the concept of legality, when you are in power everything you do is legal, when you are ousted, you could be corrupted. Tax evasion? You didn't know about the property deals? There could be other skeletons in the closet, until someone takes a thorough look in the closet, we will never know.

How much is too much? It's too much when you benchmark yourself against other public listed companies, it shows that you are paid too much when you are paid 3-4 times the salary of another comparable CEO, which runs a company 110 times of yours.

So are you justifying material greed with non-material greed? So you telling us that it's alright to be greedy in monetary terms. I think greed for non-tangible forms is more tolerated, because money is a scarce resource, you use it to make daily needs (e.g. food, housing, transport, etc), obviously you cannot have unlimited money unlike fame. Therefore if you only have $100 in circulation, the greedy who takes $99 will only leave $1 for the rest to make ends meet.

It's a controlled form, more like being locked up in a store room to protest.

There is always civil action, if she can prove her case.

Shortly after the hurricane moved away on August 30, 2005, some residents of New Orleans who remained in the city began looting stores. Many looters were in search of food and water that were not available to them through any other means.[65]

Reports of carjacking, murders, thefts, and rapes in New Orleans flooded the news. Several news media later determined that most reports were based on rumors.[66] Thousands of National Guard and federal troops were mobilized and sent to Louisiana along with numbers of local law enforcement agents from across the country who were temporarily deputized by the state. "They have M16s and are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will," Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco said. Congressman Bill Jefferson (D-LA) told ABC News: "There was shooting going on. There was sniping going on. Over the first week of September, law and order was gradually restored to the city."[67] Several shootings were between police and New Orleans residents, including the fatal incident at Danziger Bridge.[68]

Whether it's an honest mistake or a clear manipulation of the media to one's desired end is a different question in totality. Sometimes when circumstances are so chaotic, it's difficult to know the precise information, more so if you are in a big country such as USA.

You are comparing with an honest mistake with an outright manipulation of the media to suit one's end. Which do you think is more abhorrible?

It sure does apply to me, you don't see me stopping you from responding to my points. I encourage your participation to discover the fallacy of yours or my line of reasoning. Unlike the other ruling party supporters who try to shut you up with one liners.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

That is true, Singapore is number one in terms of our pay to our top public administrators (including but not exclusively, our ministers). Although that doesn't automatically mean that the reason of controlling corruption becomes an excuse. The pretext of pay increase was that "the original pay was not high enough for a person of that talent and social level", not simply "the pay was not high". And so the consideration was to benchmark their pay against other people of the same talent and social level. Now you may say that that is the wrong reason to consider or that the reason is flawed in some way, but it cannot be simply dismissed as an excuse to increase their income for if it's only money they are after, there are various means to do so without having to come up front about it.

And what makes you think the other ways have not been accounted for?

The difference here is if we should really be encouraging excess in the name of pragmatism in our leaders while at the same time the people are encouraged to take more cuts and hits.

Is this really in line with the spirit of proper leadership? Or prehaps the recent NKF saga has been forgotten by you? Durai actually did very few illegal things, but the main outcry was over the morality of his actions.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

Immorality, that would be subjective and there's room for argument. Jun Zi Ai Cai, Qu Zhi You Dao. When Guan Zhong help Qi Huan Gong to become the first great state in Warring States China, the latter had confess his 3 weakness, which is his love for women, money and musical enjoyment. But the former had replied that such personal weakness are not obstacles to making a state strong so long the state policies are such that the majority if not all of the state's people get to enjoy something as well.

As many in here have pointed out, this "something" the state's people get to enjoy as well is certainly far from ideal.

And do you seriously think the current policies are going to help the common Singaporeans in the long run? So far talk of the future has been about tightening belts, selling the common man cheaper to be more "competitive", and being willing to work until the day you die.

Yes, there even if your logic were to be followed, the majority of Singaporeans are not getting the "something to enjoy" as well.

There is a difference between knowing your weakeness and making up for it so that it does not affect others, and justifying it by saying that you can bring in other things to make up for it.

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm trying to explain here is that corruption and greed are two different things, the former being a legal concept while the latter is a moral concept. What I'm saying is therefore is that you can say that they are greedy because that is subjective, but you can't say they are corrupt because that has to be objective in accordance to the law. I'm not saying what they did was right, I'm just emphasising that it's not against the law, period! (If you would like, I'm using something like Gongsun Long Zi's white horse theory's approach)

Did anybody say it's against the law to begin with? That's you own wanting to force arguments that never existed into the debate.

What people are pointing out is that the concept of corruption extends beyond what is legally defined. And what's more, they are pointing out that it is disasterous to run any nation (that has respect for its people) based only on what is legaly acceptable without following the spirit of the law. Laws are worthless without their spirit, and this is a very pratical issue and not just mere idealism.

And FYI morality is not subjective, but an absolute thing. What we humans think about absolute right or wrong does not change the nature of it.

The bottom line is this: Regardless of the law, is the pay hike justified or not? If not, don't have to split hairs over what is legal or not.

fymk SG

I only can say this about minister's pay.

In the past, the old guards of PAP , did their contribution to Singapore , made her progress - it is thanks to some of them that Singapore did progress - they didn't work on millions of dollars - they work to make Singapore a better place to live in and she was a better place to live in.

Now these new guards of PAP ...pay themselves millions and the gap between the poor and rich widens - poor get poorer, rich get richer. FTs get employed over locals. People like Wee Shu Min, whose daddy is an MP, making Marie Antoinette like comments .....Wee Shu Min is the product of what your great leaders think of you. Don't they say children emulate their parents?

You still want to talk about million dollar salary for ministers who make the great divide between poor and rich income earners? Oh puuuuulease.